In a recent interview with Cathy Yang on Thought Leaders, PHINMA (Philippine Investment Management) CEO Ramon del Rosario Jr. delivered a rare moment of clarity on the enduring problems of governance and fiscal accountability in the Philippines. His remarks, prompted by the controversy surrounding flood-control funds, exposed not only the inefficiencies of public spending but also the deeper moral lapses that continue to erode public trust.
Del Rosario described as “strange” the President’s public rebuke of corrupt officials—“Mahiya naman kayo!”—given that, as he noted, “It was his budget to start with.” The observation underscored a critical contradiction: how can a leader disown a spending plan that his own office designed, endorsed, and pushed through Congress? This irony lies at the heart of the ongoing flood-control scandal, which has been plagued by allegations of overpriced or nonexistent projects.
More than an indictment of administrative failure, Del Rosario’s statement was a broader warning about how the national budget has devolved into a tool of patronage—a means of rewarding political allies rather than serving citizens. In a country where public works have long been treated as political currency, this critique resonates deeply.
The national budget, Del Rosario implied, is not merely an accounting instrument but a moral document. It reveals what the government values and whom it chooses to protect. When flood-control funds vanish while communities remain submerged, the figures tell a story of misplaced priorities and moral neglect.
Equally significant was Del Rosario’s emphasis on accountability. Once public funds are approved and released, officials often seek to evade responsibility. Yet leadership, he argued, demands ownership of the entire process—from proposal to implementation. Governance is not about pointing fingers; it is about stewardship and moral consistency.
Del Rosario’s prescriptions were neither radical nor utopian. They were grounded in common sense and sound governance: transparency by default, accountability at the top, and adherence to scientific principles rather than political convenience.
Effective flood control, he reminded, is not about pouring concrete indiscriminately but about managing water intelligently—through reforestation, disciplined zoning, adequate drainage, and long-term planning. Public funds should follow the science, not the politics.
What distinguishes Del Rosario’s intervention is its tone of civic decency and constructive criticism. He did not indulge in moral grandstanding or partisan rhetoric. Instead, he articulated a vision of governance anchored in responsibility and foresight—qualities that have become increasingly scarce in public discourse. His reminder that “It was his budget to start with” stands out as a quiet act of courage amid the noise and deflection that dominate the national conversation.
If taken seriously, Del Rosario’s message could reshape public expectations about governance. Each line in the national budget would be viewed not as a favor to be distributed, but as a promise to be fulfilled. Infrastructure projects—bridges, dikes, and canals—would once again serve the public interest rather than private gain.
In essence, budgets can either purchase public trust or subsidize private greed. Del Rosario’s appeal was for the former: that the nation’s finances be guided by moral integrity, transparency, and science-based policymaking.
Such clarity of thought and principle is a reminder that effective governance begins with the courage to accept responsibility. In a time when public confidence is waning, Del Rosario’s words reaffirm that good sense and moral stewardship still have a rightful place in the national dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment